The Irrelevant Retiree II
This blog is written mostly tongue in cheek. Some points may be informative. Please provide your feedback.
If you suffer from self-irrelevancy, please seek professional advice.
Hello. Further to no more mandatory retirement, one point brought up on TVO's The Agenda was the issue of firings. Some employers are hanging onto employees who can no longer do their job when they're around 60 because they know they'll be gone at 65. The reason they did that is they didn't want any wrongful dismissal headaches from firing someone. Now, of course, this strategy cannot be implemented. What Irene Harris of the Ontario Federation of Labour is wondering with no more mandatory retirement is if employers will fire people prior to 65 in order to save having to pay retirement packages.
All I can say to Ms. Harris' point of view is that opinion is very short-sighted. If employees are doing the job and want to stay, they and their employers will probably want to keep things as they are. And if the employees aren't doing the job and/or want to leave, they and their employers will probably reach an amiable settlement to get them out.
The thing all labour, union or not, old or not, should be doing is making sure they stay relevant in today's workforce. That means asking what would happen if they no longer were able to do the job because of a lack of training or the job has been eliminated. I had my job eliminated, and I hold no grudge towards the company. They gave me a severance. Now it's up to me to do what I please. That's the way it should be.
If I think it's up to someone else to be my main provider, then I've become irrelevant. And while society may think that of me, I'm not willing to think it of myself. Here's hoping everyone who may be in their last days of working at their current job feels the same way.
Regards,
Irrelevant
If you suffer from self-irrelevancy, please seek professional advice.
Hello. Further to no more mandatory retirement, one point brought up on TVO's The Agenda was the issue of firings. Some employers are hanging onto employees who can no longer do their job when they're around 60 because they know they'll be gone at 65. The reason they did that is they didn't want any wrongful dismissal headaches from firing someone. Now, of course, this strategy cannot be implemented. What Irene Harris of the Ontario Federation of Labour is wondering with no more mandatory retirement is if employers will fire people prior to 65 in order to save having to pay retirement packages.
All I can say to Ms. Harris' point of view is that opinion is very short-sighted. If employees are doing the job and want to stay, they and their employers will probably want to keep things as they are. And if the employees aren't doing the job and/or want to leave, they and their employers will probably reach an amiable settlement to get them out.
The thing all labour, union or not, old or not, should be doing is making sure they stay relevant in today's workforce. That means asking what would happen if they no longer were able to do the job because of a lack of training or the job has been eliminated. I had my job eliminated, and I hold no grudge towards the company. They gave me a severance. Now it's up to me to do what I please. That's the way it should be.
If I think it's up to someone else to be my main provider, then I've become irrelevant. And while society may think that of me, I'm not willing to think it of myself. Here's hoping everyone who may be in their last days of working at their current job feels the same way.
Regards,
Irrelevant
posted by Irrelevant at 11:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home